The US isn't really a democracy. It's a bi-party democracy. It's either or. There aren't any third options. Perhaps once the novelty of having a black president wears off and the administration needs another distraction for the masses they'll find a way to introduce a third party. Or maybe they'll try get a black female president.
That is just seriously immature on your part. I frankly didn't read the rest of your post when I read that one word. It's like having a debate with someone and instead of replying with something meaningful, or at the very least witty, you reply with an ad hominem. Want someone to take your opinion seriously? Then ditch the insults and ditch the immature behaviour.
Yes, I do realize I'm being somewhat of a hypocrite by not replying to any of your points and instead only focusing on one word you wrote.
You do realize that it's properly worded: "...a USB". Not "..an USB". Same reason you don't say
"an US immigrant". Because you actually pronounce the letters, and since you pronounce them, then you can clearly figure out that the "U" starts with a consonant sound(read "you"). Hence why you should put "a" not "an". So you are supposed to say "a USB port" and "an AMD motherboard".
I am so sick of hearing this bloody retarded English being peddled by so-called English speakers.
When in doubt: If it sounds right, then that's probably the right way to say it. That has served me more times than I can remember.
I definitely agree with you on this. This society really does need more control. Right now we have a shit load of ugly, obese people that can not lead normal lives and do nothing but eat themselves to a stroke.
Anyone that can possibly think that a obese and/or ugly person can lead a normal happy life are seriously mistaken or living in a fairy tale. It's like prolonging an animal's suffering, when instead nature would have let it die, or die out, a long time ago. I'm not saying we should euthanize ugly/obese people. I'm saying, since nature no longer plays a part in the selection of our species, that we should do it ourselves. For the sake of the greater good. For the sake of the happiness of our future generations. For our future children!!
People with predisposition for obesity should never be allowed to procreate. And mandatory weight loss programs for anyone that goes over the obese line. Or tax the hell out of obese people, as they really are taking up more space, more food and create more waste.
Pretty soon as our population bubbles out of control, which it will, we will be forced out of necessity to restrict procreation. Only the rich and/or healthy will be allowed to propagate their genes. It's the way things are headed, so start bracing yourselves now, idealists!
While we're at it. Don't forget to impose this on the entire globe so that it is fair for all people. Can't have selfish people hogging all the planet's resources because they feel the need to spread their genes with wanton disregard for the greater good.
I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about in your reply to my post. But I can comment on your previous comment, the one I commented on.
You basically said "sure lets test for the bad trait schizophrenia and eliminate it by aborting the fetus". Or something along those lines. Then you said, "while we're at it, let's throw in bi-polar".
That's a slippery slope fallacy. You're basically saying that starting to eliminate a really bad trait will lead to us progressively eliminating more and more traits that also have progressively more benign effects.
Just because we decide today that we should abort all fetus's or embryo's if they have the genetic signs of schizophrenia doesn't mean we will eventually come to a stage where we decide to do the same for a much less harmful trait such as depression.
As if the online hardware review business is any different? We all know this is true, yet you act as if Microsoft, the oh so evil corporation, is the only one that does it.
Seriously. These Microsoft 'blind-haters' are really getting pushy these days. They will find absolutely any reason to bash on Microsoft.
Where would you people be without Microsoft? Yeah, go ahead and answer that with some sort of utopian-linux-crap concocted comment. But the truth is, you guys are just unhappy that your fav OS, be it Solaris, OSX, or Linux or whatever is not the one that the masses are leaning towards currently.
News flash, guys, one OS is not the perfect solution for everything. That includes Windows, because I'm not a hypocrite. I will admit Windows is not perfect, nor is it perfect for everyone and everything. But to constantly bash it as horrible and useless, perhaps even without seeing/trying it for yourself, is just plain wrong and down right hypocritical. Even more so if you base that opinion on the fact that Microsoft gave free laptops or whatever to reviewers.
I'm not going to post this AC because someone has to stand up and say things the way they are. And I'm willing to put myself and my opinion out there.
Ever tried the windows + E shortcut? I too hate the same thing you describe. And ever since I discovered that shortcut, I haven't used any other method of opening explorer.
A few other shortcuts include windows + R for the run dialog. Windows + D to minimize or maximize to the desktop.
I have Red Alert 3 working just fine, no problems with it and my CD burner. In fact, not even a peep about me having PowerISO and Daemon Tools installed!
Anywho, as for you other comment. Well why shouldn't they try to lock down the system? I mean look at all the piracy they stopped on the Xbox! Sure, some people got around it and all that. I'm not saying it's a good thing that they want to lock down the system. What I'm saying is that it does exactly what they need it to do. Control distribution. Most importantly, they're trying to get rid of resale value, and physical media as a whole. It'll come to a point where anything but the most mundane of tasks on your computer will require an internet connection to verify you have the relevant permissions to perform that action.
Excuse me? But the majority of these "servers" are used either for important or business purposes. Thus greater care is taken for them, just like any server, regardless of OS. It's an admin's job to patch his server as best as possible.
Not a big target at all. The big target is the simple minded old granny that keeps her pc connected on her high-speed ADSL connection. A hundred of these are way more valuable to 90% of the hackers out there. Way more valuable than one business server that if they got caught accessing, will lead to an investigation. Hackers want spam or bot-nets. They don't need a "stupidly powerful" server with one IP address, no matter what connection it has.
Yes, the odd hacker here and there might want to hack into a business server for credit care, blackmail etc... But they are rare.
Thus it follows that an overwhelming majority of hackers are obviously going to not bother hacking or even thinking about hacking a server. So no linux servers aren't big targets.
But I bet you're one of those people that complains when Microsoft "bundles" software with windows!
Seriously, nothing ever appeases people like you. And if MacOS ever gained significant market share I bet you hackers would find it easier to hack then Windows. It's just the way it is. MacOS never had that kind of pressure looming over it, so it never had to focus on security.
As my sibling pointed out to you, for the traveler it would be instantaneous. This is because time warps as you approach the speed of light.
Einstein's brilliant theory doesn't allow any mass to be accelerated to the speed of light. Because as you approach the speed of light, your mass becomes infinite. And you just can't move something that has an infinite mass.
Rowling may be a greedy bitch, but she's a greedy bitch who earned her money by writing a bunch of highly popular books that lots of people want to give her money for. Why aren't you complaining about the greedy company trying to make a quick buck by leeching off of her hard work?
I must confess, I didn't know that they didn't add any real value to her work. So my criticism may have been a little premature, but come on, her reaction was excessive.
Children exploit J.K. Rowling also!
Not to the extent that she does them. Imagine the millions of spoiled little children being brainwashed by advertising to think that they need these books. These children force their willing-to-please parents into buying it. Equals profit for Rowlings. This amounts to child exploitation in my book, and is no better than having Nike factories in Asia that use minors for cheap labor.
Excuse me? But your logic is flawed. Because if I were to extend your example to be a proper analogy to the Rowlings and small publisher situation, I would change it like so:
I am a middle-income person.
Sudanese refugee makes no money.
Sudanese refugee rummages through my trash to sell beer cans to a recycling plant.
I would not take the little income they get from stealing my trash, despite what you may believe.
You obviously misunderstood the point the author was trying to say with "didn't make enough money" comments. If this were Microsoft and not JK Rowling then you wouldn't think twice about criticizing their comment.
They were trying to point out Rowling's greed. She's made billions off of Harry Potter, so what's the point of going after a small little company that would hardly make enough to cover their own costs let alone dent her precious profits?
"Bad observation. Hackneyed observation. " to you too! Underdeveloped and impoverished economies, and lack of human resources(I assume you mean skills with that), are the symptoms and not the causes. Truth is, you can't really say what the root of their problem is. Heck you can even go back in time to colonialism, but it won't do you any good in trying to find the root cause. Their problems are embedded too deep in their culture, and no amount of money being thrown around will help solve them anytime soon.
You would rather the government force you to use crap organic toothpaste that ruins your teeth than to simply switch over yourself?
Or I suppose you'd like the government to make its own "non-polluting toothpaste" and sell that to you? For a subsidized price?
Slashdot Mirror
The US isn't really a democracy. It's a bi-party democracy. It's either or. There aren't any third options. Perhaps once the novelty of having a black president wears off and the administration needs another distraction for the masses they'll find a way to introduce a third party. Or maybe they'll try get a black female president.
"silverfish"? That doesn't sound like a typo.
That is just seriously immature on your part. I frankly didn't read the rest of your post when I read that one word. It's like having a debate with someone and instead of replying with something meaningful, or at the very least witty, you reply with an ad hominem. Want someone to take your opinion seriously? Then ditch the insults and ditch the immature behaviour.
Yes, I do realize I'm being somewhat of a hypocrite by not replying to any of your points and instead only focusing on one word you wrote.
You do realize that it's properly worded: "...a USB". Not "..an USB". Same reason you don't say "an US immigrant". Because you actually pronounce the letters, and since you pronounce them, then you can clearly figure out that the "U" starts with a consonant sound(read "you"). Hence why you should put "a" not "an". So you are supposed to say "a USB port" and "an AMD motherboard".
I am so sick of hearing this bloody retarded English being peddled by so-called English speakers.
When in doubt: If it sounds right, then that's probably the right way to say it. That has served me more times than I can remember.
Windows lets you delete read-only files just as easily as normal files. You can't write to the read-only files, but that's different.
Permissions are rarely as simple as read-only vs full access. There are many more options to it.
You can go "through" a dictionary. That's probably what you meant to write.
But then again, English has some really awkward words and pronunciations.
Me thinks we need English 2.0 to come out soon. English 1.0 is way too ambiguous.
I definitely agree with you on this. This society really does need more control. Right now we have a shit load of ugly, obese people that can not lead normal lives and do nothing but eat themselves to a stroke.
Anyone that can possibly think that a obese and/or ugly person can lead a normal happy life are seriously mistaken or living in a fairy tale. It's like prolonging an animal's suffering, when instead nature would have let it die, or die out, a long time ago. I'm not saying we should euthanize ugly/obese people. I'm saying, since nature no longer plays a part in the selection of our species, that we should do it ourselves. For the sake of the greater good. For the sake of the happiness of our future generations. For our future children!!
People with predisposition for obesity should never be allowed to procreate. And mandatory weight loss programs for anyone that goes over the obese line. Or tax the hell out of obese people, as they really are taking up more space, more food and create more waste.
Pretty soon as our population bubbles out of control, which it will, we will be forced out of necessity to restrict procreation. Only the rich and/or healthy will be allowed to propagate their genes. It's the way things are headed, so start bracing yourselves now, idealists!
While we're at it. Don't forget to impose this on the entire globe so that it is fair for all people. Can't have selfish people hogging all the planet's resources because they feel the need to spread their genes with wanton disregard for the greater good.
I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about in your reply to my post. But I can comment on your previous comment, the one I commented on.
You basically said "sure lets test for the bad trait schizophrenia and eliminate it by aborting the fetus". Or something along those lines. Then you said, "while we're at it, let's throw in bi-polar".
That's a slippery slope fallacy. You're basically saying that starting to eliminate a really bad trait will lead to us progressively eliminating more and more traits that also have progressively more benign effects.
Just because we decide today that we should abort all fetus's or embryo's if they have the genetic signs of schizophrenia doesn't mean we will eventually come to a stage where we decide to do the same for a much less harmful trait such as depression.
Ah, the old Slippery slope fallacy. Nice one!
You should stick to rhetoric, buddy. At least that way we can't point out your flawed arguments so easily.
Ha... Definitely what I expected.
You seem to forget who is doing the actual whining.
Arguing with you people using logic is like talking to a brick wall. You consistently reply with the same recorded fallacy-ridden ideas.
I'm not going to reply further as arguing with zealous fanatics like you is pointless.
As if the online hardware review business is any different? We all know this is true, yet you act as if Microsoft, the oh so evil corporation, is the only one that does it.
Seriously. These Microsoft 'blind-haters' are really getting pushy these days. They will find absolutely any reason to bash on Microsoft.
Where would you people be without Microsoft? Yeah, go ahead and answer that with some sort of utopian-linux-crap concocted comment. But the truth is, you guys are just unhappy that your fav OS, be it Solaris, OSX, or Linux or whatever is not the one that the masses are leaning towards currently.
News flash, guys, one OS is not the perfect solution for everything. That includes Windows, because I'm not a hypocrite. I will admit Windows is not perfect, nor is it perfect for everyone and everything. But to constantly bash it as horrible and useless, perhaps even without seeing/trying it for yourself, is just plain wrong and down right hypocritical. Even more so if you base that opinion on the fact that Microsoft gave free laptops or whatever to reviewers.
I'm not going to post this AC because someone has to stand up and say things the way they are. And I'm willing to put myself and my opinion out there.
Ever tried the windows + E shortcut? I too hate the same thing you describe. And ever since I discovered that shortcut, I haven't used any other method of opening explorer. A few other shortcuts include windows + R for the run dialog. Windows + D to minimize or maximize to the desktop.
I have Red Alert 3 working just fine, no problems with it and my CD burner. In fact, not even a peep about me having PowerISO and Daemon Tools installed!
Anywho, as for you other comment. Well why shouldn't they try to lock down the system? I mean look at all the piracy they stopped on the Xbox! Sure, some people got around it and all that. I'm not saying it's a good thing that they want to lock down the system.
What I'm saying is that it does exactly what they need it to do. Control distribution. Most importantly, they're trying to get rid of resale value, and physical media as a whole. It'll come to a point where anything but the most mundane of tasks on your computer will require an internet connection to verify you have the relevant permissions to perform that action.
I'm not even going to read this. It hurts my eyes... People invented the quote tag for a reason!
What makes you think he's white? Sounds like he isn't the only one with racist beliefs.
Excuse me? But the majority of these "servers" are used either for important or business purposes. Thus greater care is taken for them, just like any server, regardless of OS. It's an admin's job to patch his server as best as possible.
Not a big target at all. The big target is the simple minded old granny that keeps her pc connected on her high-speed ADSL connection. A hundred of these are way more valuable to 90% of the hackers out there. Way more valuable than one business server that if they got caught accessing, will lead to an investigation. Hackers want spam or bot-nets. They don't need a "stupidly powerful" server with one IP address, no matter what connection it has.
Yes, the odd hacker here and there might want to hack into a business server for credit care, blackmail etc... But they are rare.
Thus it follows that an overwhelming majority of hackers are obviously going to not bother hacking or even thinking about hacking a server. So no linux servers aren't big targets.
But I bet you're one of those people that complains when Microsoft "bundles" software with windows!
Seriously, nothing ever appeases people like you. And if MacOS ever gained significant market share I bet you hackers would find it easier to hack then Windows. It's just the way it is. MacOS never had that kind of pressure looming over it, so it never had to focus on security.
As my sibling pointed out to you, for the traveler it would be instantaneous. This is because time warps as you approach the speed of light. Einstein's brilliant theory doesn't allow any mass to be accelerated to the speed of light. Because as you approach the speed of light, your mass becomes infinite. And you just can't move something that has an infinite mass.
Not to mention the horrible grammar inside his article:
http://www.brighthub.com/computing/enterprise-security/articles/868.aspx
"But until consumers starting taking responsibility for their problems, [...]"
"[..]traditionally spend large amount of money[...]"
I didn't bother looking for more because I can't bring myself to reread that article.
Good points, Ben, but we'd take you more seriously if you actually bothered to use some form of spell-check in your articles.
Rowling may be a greedy bitch, but she's a greedy bitch who earned her money by writing a bunch of highly popular books that lots of people want to give her money for. Why aren't you complaining about the greedy company trying to make a quick buck by leeching off of her hard work?
I must confess, I didn't know that they didn't add any real value to her work. So my criticism may have been a little premature, but come on, her reaction was excessive.
Children exploit J.K. Rowling also!
Not to the extent that she does them. Imagine the millions of spoiled little children being brainwashed by advertising to think that they need these books. These children force their willing-to-please parents into buying it. Equals profit for Rowlings. This amounts to child exploitation in my book, and is no better than having Nike factories in Asia that use minors for cheap labor.
Excuse me? But your logic is flawed. Because if I were to extend your example to be a proper analogy to the Rowlings and small publisher situation, I would change it like so:
I am a middle-income person. Sudanese refugee makes no money. Sudanese refugee rummages through my trash to sell beer cans to a recycling plant. I would not take the little income they get from stealing my trash, despite what you may believe.
You obviously misunderstood the point the author was trying to say with "didn't make enough money" comments. If this were Microsoft and not JK Rowling then you wouldn't think twice about criticizing their comment.
They were trying to point out Rowling's greed. She's made billions off of Harry Potter, so what's the point of going after a small little company that would hardly make enough to cover their own costs let alone dent her precious profits?
JK Rowling exploits children.
"Bad observation. Hackneyed observation. " to you too! Underdeveloped and impoverished economies, and lack of human resources(I assume you mean skills with that), are the symptoms and not the causes.
Truth is, you can't really say what the root of their problem is. Heck you can even go back in time to colonialism, but it won't do you any good in trying to find the root cause. Their problems are embedded too deep in their culture, and no amount of money being thrown around will help solve them anytime soon.
The Lord of the Rings is a book... :) The movie may be good, but it doesn't do the book justice.
He doesn't need to know your age. Your immature behaviour in discussing this topic speaks volumes about your age, buddy.
So let me get this straight:
You would rather the government force you to use crap organic toothpaste that ruins your teeth than to simply switch over yourself?
Or I suppose you'd like the government to make its own "non-polluting toothpaste" and sell that to you? For a subsidized price?